Putting aside the specific matter of jurisdiction (state level cases require state level pardons), legal experts widely agree that the concept of a self-pardon does not exist in pretty much any body of law, ever, because it basically refutes the idea of there being a body of law.
But, given that the supreme court decided that the president is a god-king emperor, the fact that he can’t legally do it no longer really matters.
The answer, as I understand it, is basically “Who the fuck knows?”
Every serious legal analyst seems to agree that the SC’s immunity decision is, uh… I think the technical term is “Total fucking lunacy.” It makes no sense, destroys a lot of existing legal precedent, and generally overturns many of the foundational principles of the US constitution. It’s batshit crazy, and the actual terms of the immunity and how it’s defined are astonishingly vague.
What the president can or cannot do right now is more or less “???”
As president, could Trump pardon himself?
Probably not. The Hush Money case is a state case, not a federal case. Presidential pardons (up till this point) are only valid for federal crimes.
Putting aside the specific matter of jurisdiction (state level cases require state level pardons), legal experts widely agree that the concept of a self-pardon does not exist in pretty much any body of law, ever, because it basically refutes the idea of there being a body of law.
But, given that the supreme court decided that the president is a god-king emperor, the fact that he can’t legally do it no longer really matters.
That’s what I was wondering about
The answer, as I understand it, is basically “Who the fuck knows?”
Every serious legal analyst seems to agree that the SC’s immunity decision is, uh… I think the technical term is “Total fucking lunacy.” It makes no sense, destroys a lot of existing legal precedent, and generally overturns many of the foundational principles of the US constitution. It’s batshit crazy, and the actual terms of the immunity and how it’s defined are astonishingly vague.
What the president can or cannot do right now is more or less “???”
The SC case can be summarized as “Can the president commit crimes?” “Probably. Tell us what crime it is and we will decide later”
Authoritarians have only one reason: “Because I said so.”
So does money being the same as speech. So does presidential immunity.
There seems to be a pattern here.
Not the state case. He has the power at the federal level only.